6 ms·

Goes without saying that the system is broken. But I'd imagine it's easier/cheaper to just hand over the data than challenge the request and get lawyers involve

by feifan 13y ago

Goes without saying that the system is broken. But I'd imagine it's easier/cheaper to just hand over the data than challenge the request and get lawyers involved…

bediger4000 13y ago
Can a receipient of a FISA court order even get their own lawyers involved? Given the kind of hair splitting, finely honed definitions and word games going on in Congressional testimony, I wouldn't put it past FISA judges/spokesmodels/whatever to claim that nobody ever challenged an order when there's actually no procedure to perform such a challenge, and no attempts to challenge have even been recognized.
- DannyBee 13y ago
  1. Yes, it's specifically allowed by statute to talk to your lawyer about it 2. The FISC judge is correct in his statement. For that type of order, their is a procedure, it's documented in both the statute and the rules, and has a documented appeals procedure that leads to the supreme court. He's not a spokesmodel, he's a federal judge. While some small percentage are certainly political appointees, this one, and others, are more deserving of respect than you are giving them.
  - rosser 13y ago
    Your comment — particularly your final graf — reads to me like a big ol', "Don't hate the player, hate the game." And while, for some games, I think that's a completely legitimate attitude, I really have a lot of trouble swallowing it in this context. As a Federal judge, he has tremendous power to effect change in the matters that come before his bench, and yet FISC is, to all appearances, a rubber stamp with a security clearance. To the extent that's actually the case, I don't think hating the player is unwarranted, as it's exactly that kind of player who has made — and continues to make, with every unquestioned encroachment — the game the bowl of suck that it is.
    - DannyBee 13y ago
      It's not really "don't hate the player, hate the game" at all. It's "don't be an asshole to a guy you've never met and have no idea about, and assume bad faith on his part". FISC is not a rubber stamp, as explained in that very article. As a federal judge, he is bound by the rules of the FISC court, and the legal statutes that enacted it and set the standards they must follow. He just went out of his way to say, in public: "Just FYI, you guys are more than welcome to challenge this. I believe you have the authority to do so, and here is the statute I believe grants you that authority". Instead of saying "hey, great look, even the main judge thinks we have a right to challenge this", y'all are jumping on him like he's lying through his teeth. He has no right to challenge these orders himself. He can modify them, but only within the bounds of the law. As I said, his job is not to make law, but to be bound by the statutes that rule his court. Have you ever stopped for a second to think that maybe this is his way of trying to explain to people how to get this stuff shut down? You know, instead of assuming he's just trying to lie to save face. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he is lying to save face. Maybe he doesn't really give a shit. Most federal judges I know are better than that. I may not always agree with their ideologies or rulings, but just about every one i've ever met tries to do the right thing. Whatever you may believe, they certainly aren't mouthpieces for any administration. Hell, even his wikipedia page will tell you that.
      - rosser 13y ago
        First, where in what I said do you infer an accusation of lying? I never said, nor even thought such a thing. To the contrary, I'm actually rather thrilled to see someone that deeply involved in this nastiness stand up and say what he's just said. That doesn't excuse his participation to date one whit, however. He's as culpable as anyone else who actively and willingly participates in the surveillance state for the fact that we have a surveillance state, he's directly and personally responsible for whatever abuses of the law have passed across his bench, and I'm willing to bet everything I have that such abuses have crossed his bench, and been approved by him. Second, how exactly does one not characterize a situation in which, "In short, it appears that the government only submits applications that it knows will get approved—after having first gotten them modified to meet that approval," as more or less a rubber stamp?

by feifan 13y ago

Goes without saying that the system is broken. But I'd imagine it's easier/cheaper to just hand over the data than challenge the request and get lawyers involved…

bediger4000 13y ago

Can a receipient of a FISA court order even get their own lawyers involved? Given the kind of hair splitting, finely honed definitions and word games going on in Congressional testimony, I wouldn't put it past FISA judges/spokesmodels/whatever to claim that nobody ever challenged an order when there's actually no procedure to perform such a challenge, and no attempts to challenge have even been recognized.

DannyBee 13y ago
1. Yes, it's specifically allowed by statute to talk to your lawyer about it 2. The FISC judge is correct in his statement. For that type of order, their is a procedure, it's documented in both the statute and the rules, and has a documented appeals procedure that leads to the supreme court. He's not a spokesmodel, he's a federal judge. While some small percentage are certainly political appointees, this one, and others, are more deserving of respect than you are giving them.
- rosser 13y ago
  Your comment — particularly your final graf — reads to me like a big ol', "Don't hate the player, hate the game." And while, for some games, I think that's a completely legitimate attitude, I really have a lot of trouble swallowing it in this context. As a Federal judge, he has tremendous power to effect change in the matters that come before his bench, and yet FISC is, to all appearances, a rubber stamp with a security clearance. To the extent that's actually the case, I don't think hating the player is unwarranted, as it's exactly that kind of player who has made — and continues to make, with every unquestioned encroachment — the game the bowl of suck that it is.
  - DannyBee 13y ago
    It's not really "don't hate the player, hate the game" at all. It's "don't be an asshole to a guy you've never met and have no idea about, and assume bad faith on his part". FISC is not a rubber stamp, as explained in that very article. As a federal judge, he is bound by the rules of the FISC court, and the legal statutes that enacted it and set the standards they must follow. He just went out of his way to say, in public: "Just FYI, you guys are more than welcome to challenge this. I believe you have the authority to do so, and here is the statute I believe grants you that authority". Instead of saying "hey, great look, even the main judge thinks we have a right to challenge this", y'all are jumping on him like he's lying through his teeth. He has no right to challenge these orders himself. He can modify them, but only within the bounds of the law. As I said, his job is not to make law, but to be bound by the statutes that rule his court. Have you ever stopped for a second to think that maybe this is his way of trying to explain to people how to get this stuff shut down? You know, instead of assuming he's just trying to lie to save face. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he is lying to save face. Maybe he doesn't really give a shit. Most federal judges I know are better than that. I may not always agree with their ideologies or rulings, but just about every one i've ever met tries to do the right thing. Whatever you may believe, they certainly aren't mouthpieces for any administration. Hell, even his wikipedia page will tell you that.
    - rosser 13y ago
      First, where in what I said do you infer an accusation of lying? I never said, nor even thought such a thing. To the contrary, I'm actually rather thrilled to see someone that deeply involved in this nastiness stand up and say what he's just said. That doesn't excuse his participation to date one whit, however. He's as culpable as anyone else who actively and willingly participates in the surveillance state for the fact that we have a surveillance state, he's directly and personally responsible for whatever abuses of the law have passed across his bench, and I'm willing to bet everything I have that such abuses have crossed his bench, and been approved by him. Second, how exactly does one not characterize a situation in which, "In short, it appears that the government only submits applications that it knows will get approved—after having first gotten them modified to meet that approval," as more or less a rubber stamp?